Perhaps 25% of women in STEM is fine, if 25% of them are interested in STEM fields and the 75% are in other areas, then that's perfect representation.
Umm, no.
If 25% of the PEOPLE who are interested in STEM are women, than 25% women in STEM is perfect representation.
Your analysis reduces to "there are 150 million women in the country. If 37 million of them are interested in STEM, then there is perfect representation. Never mind that there aren't 150 million STEM jobs for those 37 million women to take 25% of. Never mind that there aren't 113 million MEN interested in STEM...."
My father wasn't much of a drinking man (his father was an alcoholic), but you've essentially described Dad's solution to teaching us kids not to drink - let them try it.
Far as I know, it worked for all of us. My little brother is the hardest drinker of us, and his idea of "heavy drinking" is three beers in the same day.
Sure, but what businesses are so dumb that they will share their internal communications with another company?
Pretty much all of the ones that use that new-fangled telephone. Of course, back in the days when the telegraph was the thing, well, pretty much all of them used that too.
And the USPS does, in fact, have a pretty solid metadata look inside most businesses, since they know the destination of pretty much every package and letter sent or received in the USA.
Note that teleconferencing sans Facebook still means the entire datastream is going over wires owned by, well, another business, who can look, or not, at their discretion.....
In other words, the only thing new here is the Facebook logo....
i imagine if you did this in the usa you'd get sued for using spectrums you don't own. does anyone care in mexico?
In point of fact, the company that sold this town its base-station has legal rights to the spectrum they're selling, granted by the Mexican government.
What he's proposing is ALLOWING cities to build municipal broadband networks. He's not requiring it, and he's not paying for it.
So, maybe, a city decides to build such a thing. They're going to let a contract to...a broadband company to build it, then the broadband company is going to sell it. Sort of like now, with either the city taking an extra cut of the profits, or the city raising taxes to pay for it.
Main reason for lack of competition is the cost. That cost isn't going away with this plan....
First and foremost the nature of real sentience is free will. If it doesn't have free will, it's not a real AI.
This statement seems to imply that YOU have "free will". Can you prove that? Can you even demonstrate it, much less prove it?
Given that you can prove that you have "free will", you can, presumably also prove that any other species of animal/plant has "free will". So, which ones do? and why? And why don't the others?
How can your politics be so screwed up that both houses are run by the opposite party to the president in power.
This sort of thing happens in the USA because many of us don't want the government to "get things done". We're mostly happy with the status quo (or not too unhappy, anyways), and figure, based on past experience, that most of what the government does when it gets the urge to "do something about xxx" will:
a) not produce the intended result
b) cost us more money
c) generally not get anything (good or bad) done till long after the problem its meant to solve has gone away on its own.
Do remember that we vote for a PERSON, not a PARTY, as most of you in Europe and elsewhere do. The question isn't "do we want more Democrats/Republicans?" but "do we want this particular bozo?"
So when are you going to start supporting my right to own a grenade launcher?
Note that it requires a special FFL to own a grenade launcher, and that it's unlikely that Obama's Justice Department will issue you one, but they're otherwise legal in the USA.
Jihadists can say what they want, but they can't advocate killing artists with Kalashnikovs.
Two things:
1) so it would be okay if they advocated killing artists with shotguns?
2) let them advocate anything they damn well please. Including killing artists with AK's. Punish the people who do the killing(s) is applicable.
Note also that "incitement to riot" is a crime. wouldn't be hard to use that against people who publicly advocate killing all the "jews/blacks/cartoonists/Pats", assuming that someone then had a go at the actual killing. But we don't need to get into the habit of censoring people's speech because we don't like it.
Your comparison would be a lot more apt if we could drive around the equator ten times in less than three days.
Or even fly around the equator ten times in three days (five days flight for an SR-71, assuming inflight refueling 80 times could be done in an average of about one minute).
It should, perhaps, be noted that your "examples" come from a pre-Christian era.
Useful hint: the Old Testament is God's arrangement with his Chosen People (the Jews). The New Testament is god's arrangement on, well, anyone who wants to accept it. Islam (and I say this as a complete amateur, since I've not spent too much time reading the Koran, much less studying it (and my Koran, being an English translation, is more or less disavowed by Muslims everywhere)) is the editorial commentary when it was realized (by God, Muhammed, whomever) that everyone else had mangled the message....
Which, among other things, means that the Ten Commandments are not binding on Christians except insofar as they choose to be bound by them. They're bound by that NEW covenant that the four Gospels talk about.
Oh, and note that the commentaries after the Four Gospels are just that - commentary. They're not binding.
And, in case you're wondering, I got this PoV from a Sunday School Teacher many years ago....
That's the point I was making in that post: there is really no reason for me to carry around my AR-15 in public, and I don't.
Soo....I do NOT have a Concealed Carry permit, and don't carry my AR-15 in public either.
Again, why was the Concealed Carry permit mentioned along with the AR-15. I mean, I have a Driver's License, and I hardly ever take my sofa into the front yard, but I can't see how the CCW and AR15 are related enough to fit into the same sentence....
Actually, the Second Amendment says NOTHING about a "State run and organized militia".
Note however, in relevance to the "Militia" that the "Militia Act" is still in force.
The Militia Act REQUIRES members of the militia to own a military-grade firearm.
The Militia Act also defines "members of the militia" as pretty much every adult male in the USA. Arguably, non-citizens are exempted, though.
So, in keeping with the (idiotic) notion that the Bill of Rights lists a bunch of INDIVIDUAL Rights, except for the Second, which isn't an individual Right, we can assume that the Second PLUS the Militia Act REQUIRES every American male (presumably the ERA or similar legislation means it applies to women as well) to own a military grade firearm - full auto or selective fire, in 5.56mm NATO (the current round favoured by the Army).
Note that the "right to marry" you refer to says nothing about marriage between any two random people.
"Equal rights to marriage" is true if the "equal rights" are "any man may marry any (consenting) woman of his choice". Note that "love" is not specified as a defining characteristic of marriage.
Note also that "found a family" line tends to suggest that "marriage" is a right that is intended for the whole "procreation" bit. Which is a bit harder when two guys are married.
All that aside, personally, don't much care one way or another about the subject. It's a government's business who gets to marry whom. And how many times. Though I do wish that the gay marriage people would push for multiple marriages as well. After all, there's nothing in the "Right to Marry" that specifies it must be restricted to two people....
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, no.
If 25% of the PEOPLE who are interested in STEM are women, than 25% women in STEM is perfect representation.
Your analysis reduces to "there are 150 million women in the country. If 37 million of them are interested in STEM, then there is perfect representation. Never mind that there aren't 150 million STEM jobs for those 37 million women to take 25% of. Never mind that there aren't 113 million MEN interested in STEM...."
What, people still have normal phones? Got rid of at&t years ago, when I realized my whole family used cellphones for everything.
My father wasn't much of a drinking man (his father was an alcoholic), but you've essentially described Dad's solution to teaching us kids not to drink - let them try it.
Far as I know, it worked for all of us. My little brother is the hardest drinker of us, and his idea of "heavy drinking" is three beers in the same day.
I remember back in the day playing miles from home in the hills up past the artillery range.
I also remember breaking my arm on such a trip, and having to push my bike home one-handed.
Not something I think Maryland CPS would have approved of, I suspect.
Pretty much all of the ones that use that new-fangled telephone. Of course, back in the days when the telegraph was the thing, well, pretty much all of them used that too.
And the USPS does, in fact, have a pretty solid metadata look inside most businesses, since they know the destination of pretty much every package and letter sent or received in the USA.
Note that teleconferencing sans Facebook still means the entire datastream is going over wires owned by, well, another business, who can look, or not, at their discretion.....
In other words, the only thing new here is the Facebook logo....
In point of fact, the company that sold this town its base-station has legal rights to the spectrum they're selling, granted by the Mexican government.
What "more robust competition" is this?
What he's proposing is ALLOWING cities to build municipal broadband networks. He's not requiring it, and he's not paying for it.
So, maybe, a city decides to build such a thing. They're going to let a contract to...a broadband company to build it, then the broadband company is going to sell it. Sort of like now, with either the city taking an extra cut of the profits, or the city raising taxes to pay for it.
Main reason for lack of competition is the cost. That cost isn't going away with this plan....
Y'know, back in the day, they said that about cars, planes, computers, pretty much every new thing.
Funny how that turned out....
Lone. I take it you were setting yourself up as an example?
This statement seems to imply that YOU have "free will". Can you prove that? Can you even demonstrate it, much less prove it?
Given that you can prove that you have "free will", you can, presumably also prove that any other species of animal/plant has "free will". So, which ones do? and why? And why don't the others?
This sort of thing happens in the USA because many of us don't want the government to "get things done". We're mostly happy with the status quo (or not too unhappy, anyways), and figure, based on past experience, that most of what the government does when it gets the urge to "do something about xxx" will:
a) not produce the intended result
b) cost us more money
c) generally not get anything (good or bad) done till long after the problem its meant to solve has gone away on its own.
Do remember that we vote for a PERSON, not a PARTY, as most of you in Europe and elsewhere do. The question isn't "do we want more Democrats/Republicans?" but "do we want this particular bozo?"
FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The "falsely" is important.
Methinks there might be a "not" missing in the above.
Otherwise, your Charter of Rights & Freedoms seems to boil down to "murder is okay, since law or society deems it harmful"....
Later law automagically overrides, so a law cannot make anything permanent.
All it'll take is a new law allowing/mandating internet access taxes to make this "permanent" ban vanish.
Dragon, Falcon, all the same eh?
Seriously, not sure how I managed to put the wrong name on the rocket. My bad.
No, it tells us they got the Dragon down onto a 300x170 foot platform before things went south.
Personally, I'm impressed that the Dragon even found the landing barge on the first try....
Note that it requires a special FFL to own a grenade launcher, and that it's unlikely that Obama's Justice Department will issue you one, but they're otherwise legal in the USA.
Shooting them at people, not so much....
Two things:
1) so it would be okay if they advocated killing artists with shotguns?
2) let them advocate anything they damn well please. Including killing artists with AK's. Punish the people who do the killing(s) is applicable.
Note also that "incitement to riot" is a crime. wouldn't be hard to use that against people who publicly advocate killing all the "jews/blacks/cartoonists/Pats", assuming that someone then had a go at the actual killing. But we don't need to get into the habit of censoring people's speech because we don't like it.
Your comparison would be a lot more apt if we could drive around the equator ten times in less than three days.
Or even fly around the equator ten times in three days (five days flight for an SR-71, assuming inflight refueling 80 times could be done in an average of about one minute).
It should, perhaps, be noted that your "examples" come from a pre-Christian era.
Useful hint: the Old Testament is God's arrangement with his Chosen People (the Jews). The New Testament is god's arrangement on, well, anyone who wants to accept it. Islam (and I say this as a complete amateur, since I've not spent too much time reading the Koran, much less studying it (and my Koran, being an English translation, is more or less disavowed by Muslims everywhere)) is the editorial commentary when it was realized (by God, Muhammed, whomever) that everyone else had mangled the message....
Which, among other things, means that the Ten Commandments are not binding on Christians except insofar as they choose to be bound by them. They're bound by that NEW covenant that the four Gospels talk about.
Oh, and note that the commentaries after the Four Gospels are just that - commentary. They're not binding.
And, in case you're wondering, I got this PoV from a Sunday School Teacher many years ago....
Wait a century or so, do a Leap Minute. We won't be bothered by the silly thing if they only happen once in a lifetime, if that often.
Soo....I do NOT have a Concealed Carry permit, and don't carry my AR-15 in public either.
Again, why was the Concealed Carry permit mentioned along with the AR-15. I mean, I have a Driver's License, and I hardly ever take my sofa into the front yard, but I can't see how the CCW and AR15 are related enough to fit into the same sentence....
Actually, the Second Amendment says NOTHING about a "State run and organized militia".
Note however, in relevance to the "Militia" that the "Militia Act" is still in force.
The Militia Act REQUIRES members of the militia to own a military-grade firearm.
The Militia Act also defines "members of the militia" as pretty much every adult male in the USA. Arguably, non-citizens are exempted, though.
So, in keeping with the (idiotic) notion that the Bill of Rights lists a bunch of INDIVIDUAL Rights, except for the Second, which isn't an individual Right, we can assume that the Second PLUS the Militia Act REQUIRES every American male (presumably the ERA or similar legislation means it applies to women as well) to own a military grade firearm - full auto or selective fire, in 5.56mm NATO (the current round favoured by the Army).
"Equal rights to marriage" is true if the "equal rights" are "any man may marry any (consenting) woman of his choice". Note that "love" is not specified as a defining characteristic of marriage.
Note also that "found a family" line tends to suggest that "marriage" is a right that is intended for the whole "procreation" bit. Which is a bit harder when two guys are married.
All that aside, personally, don't much care one way or another about the subject. It's a government's business who gets to marry whom. And how many times. Though I do wish that the gay marriage people would push for multiple marriages as well. After all, there's nothing in the "Right to Marry" that specifies it must be restricted to two people....
From your linked study, that "5x more likely to be shot" is BY YOURSELF, since the 5x number applies to suicide....